Wednesday, January 11th 2017

Intel Adds Hyper-Threading to Its Kaby Lake-based Pentium CPUs

Intel Corporation has made a slight tweak to its product line: the addition of Hyper-Threading to some of its processors which, traditionally, didn't carry it. This includes the Pentium G4620 (3.7 GHz base frequency and integrated graphics HD 630, $93) and G4600 (3.6 GHz base frequency, $82), both at 51 W TDP; G4560 (54W TDP at 3.5 GHz and integrated HD 610 graphics, $64); and the Pentium G4600T (3 GHz, HD 630, $75) and G4560T (2.9 GHz, HD 610, $64) slot in as the low power Pentium offerings with a 35W TDP. All of these processors now carry 2 physical cores, which the system sees exposed as 4 logical cores due to their Hyper-Threading enablement.
In a bid to differentiate these microprocessors from their i3 line (which seem dangerously close in specs now), the Pentiums forgo the Advanced Vector Instructions 2 (AVX2) extension set, of which generally database processing and video editing tend to take advantage, though these are probably use cases for which the particular market for this processors won't be planning on running them as a priority.

Pricing is the key difference between the two, as the Kaby Lake-based i3 chips command a ~$53-$63 premium over these Pentium counterparts, with an expected performance delta being much, much less than that value (the base frequency difference between the i3 7100 and the Pentium G4620 stands at a mere 200 MHz in favor of the former).

All in all, an interesting, if long coming, change to Intel's line. That we still have to contend with dual-core, four-threaded CPUs in 2016 is a sign of the stagnant CPU market we've been living for a few years now; but it's definitely much, much better than last year's proposition, where you'd have to contend with a mere two cores in a low-end system. Whether or not this is a sign of Intel preparing for the Ryzen onslaught, only the Intel higher-ups know, though it does seem strange for that being the reason, considering that Ryzen is supposed to tackle, at its minimum, a completely different segment of the market.
Add your own comment

37 Comments on Intel Adds Hyper-Threading to Its Kaby Lake-based Pentium CPUs

#1
Captain_Tom
theoneandonlymrk said:
Probably too late , with games going multi threaded I don't think AMD will sell a quad core RyZen ,I personally think that range will go from 6-16 cores ,they have the low to mainstream covered already.
Seams an odd move by Intel to me since they run the risk of elucidating everyone to their binning strategy of breaking shit on purpose.
It is quite true that everything Intel releases was set in stone 2 years before it released. As such it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was 1-2 years of AMD roflstomping Intel.
Posted on Reply
#2
ShurikN
theoneandonlymrk said:
Probably too late , with games going multi threaded I don't think AMD will sell a quad core RyZen ,I personally think that range will go from 6-16 cores ,they have the low to mainstream covered already.
Seams an odd move by Intel to me since they run the risk of elucidating everyone to their binning strategy of breaking shit on purpose.
A low end Zen 4c/8t priced like a i3 can stir some heavy shit. *IF* it happens.
Posted on Reply
#3
Blitzer
Over 45% of PC players are still using dual core CPU's (According to Steam Stats).
Posted on Reply
#4
Harry Lloyd
Very nice. 3.5 GHz, 4 threads with DDR4-2400 support for just 64 $? Fantastic value compared to Core i3.

Seems like a preemptive response to Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#5
hojnikb
Harry Lloyd said:
Very nice. 3.5 GHz, 4 threads with DDR4-2400 support for just 64 $? Fantastic value compared to Core i3.

Seems like a preemptive response to Ryzen.
or to kill the non existing athlon x4 950 :)
Posted on Reply
#6
Franzen4Real
HopelesslyFaithful said:
I dont know what your smoking. I see my dual core max out while just web browsing and i see my quad core 4.8Ghz 6700K max out while browsing in chrome (select heavy media pages max the cpu/opening multiply pages). I also notice load times on pages are far worse on dual core vs quad due to cpu limitation. Slick deals, netlfix, hulu are all good examples but all pages load slower but its painfully slower on those media type pages. Pages are stupidly media intensive now and i loathe using my i7 U6500 vs my desktop. It is super fucking slow in browsing verse my desktop and thats not even really "tough cpu stuff"
Apparently I'm smoking the same thing, as my i3 HTPC, i7laptop&desktop have never exhibited the behavior you've described. ever. Probably the strangest part about this is that I don't even smoke...

On topic, I would like to think this is a sign of the transition to come soon as other comments have pointed out, and see a bump up in core/thread count across the entire product stack.
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
IMO, this should have been done a long time ago.

It should be:

Celerons = 2c/2t
Pentiums = 2c/4t
Core i3 = 4c/4t
Core i5 = 4c/8t
Core i7 = 6c+/12t+
Posted on Reply
#8
Captain_Tom
newtekie1 said:
IMO, this should have been done a long time ago.

It should be:

Celerons = 2c/2t
Pentiums = 2c/4t
Core i3 = 4c/4t
Core i5 = 4c/8t
Core i7 = 6c+/12t+
It's definitely long overdue. I would argue Broadwell should have started this line-up.


The original line-up was conceived with this mindset:

Celeron = bare minimum, not meant for gaming
Pentium = Can run games ok. But only for budget builds
i3 = Good gaming CPU, not meant for super cards.
i5 = Good enough for the overwhelming majority of builds (Including enthusiast).
i7 = Massive overkill for gaming. Only for the most extreme builds or future proof-ing.


That was fine until around 2013 when all games started using 8 threads, and many games wouldn't even START without 4 threads. At that point a 2c/4t is really the "Minimum" anyone should choose for gaming, and 4c/8t is the norm for good gaming builds. Hence why I dropped all support for the i5 a couple years ago. i3's are 80% the performance for half the cost, and if you actually want a good gaming CPU - an i7 is mandatory.
Posted on Reply
#9
Captain_Tom
Blitzer said:
Over 45% of PC players are still using dual core CPU's (According to Steam Stats).
Look closer. They may be using "Dual Cores", but most of them have 4 threads.

People need to stop saying just the core count too. Number of THREADS is what matters.
Posted on Reply
#10
Melvis
captainskyhawk said:
:twitch: There is... something wrong with your computer(s). If they're on the same network, you might want to do a good virus/spyware scan ASAP.
No no he is correct actually about that, I have on my main PC's Chrome and when I open it up I load all the pages I had open the time before, which could be around 10tabs lets say, as soon as I hit the button to load all my tabs my 8cores get maxed out loading all the pages. This can be avoided of course if you dont open up a ton of pages at one time or use a program (I cant think of it right now) that only loads the pages in chrome that you click on to be active, this decreases the load time and stress on the CPU.

So he is correct in what he is saying :)

Edit: Its called The Great Suspender. Install that add on to Chrome and that helps with lower CPU usage when opening up multiple tabs :)
Posted on Reply
#11
Olle P
The German site ComputerBase.de show that the Pentium 4560 mostly outperform the Skylake generation of Core i3 and trail close to Core i5.
To me it seems like for most applications both i3 and i5 have become irrelevant for new builds. Either you need the extra performance (threads) of a Core i7 or a Pentium will be good enough at a fraction of the cost.
Posted on Reply
#12
micropage7
Frick said:
And I don't know what you are smoking, my Pentium G3220 behaves just fine, in avarage desktop use no different from machines with more threads. The only time I wanted more threads was when I tried the BF1 beta.

This is excellent news. Celeron = 2c/2t, Pentium = 2c/4t, i3 = 4c/4t, i5 = 4c/8t, i7 = 6-8c/12-16t. Without raising prices! One can dream anyway... Utopia (or close to it) would be fully unlocked CPUs across the range, all of them.
yeah, still run dual cores and so far its enough so intel always tell take i3 but for easy task with limited budget it should perform pretty well
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment